Loading ...(Click here for the latest from Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka.)
Susanne Johnson, the theology professor who objects to the Bush institute, is the author of the website www.smirkingchimp.com, which continually mocks the president and his administration.
This entry was posted on Friday, May 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Bad Behavior has blocked 0 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Presented by: ArkansasOnline | Frank Lockwood on behalf of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette | Copyright © 2010 BibleBeltBlogger.com | All rights reserved.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
How do we know the shape the Bush Institute at SMU will take?
According to a Bush Foundation document signed by the president’s brother Marvin Bush, the Institute’s mission is “to further the Bush Administration’s domestic and international goals,” which is precisely what partisanship is. Further highlighting its partisan nature is the likely appointment, of Republican mastermind Karl Rove to “take charge…of the design, fundraising, and planning” for the Institute, according to U.S, News and Report.
According to SMU President R. Gerald Turner, the Bush institute will engage in partisan hiring procedures and staffing. He explained to the SMU faculty that “the Institute will want to hire independently its fellows to address its areas of focus…. [T]his approach would fall outside of University practices and standards.” One can only imagine what this might bring to campus: How about Scooter Libby as distinguished fellow in political ethics?
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Frank, it appears that the only reason for your comment regarding Dr. Johnson is to dismiss her and other critics as mere Bush-bashers. Is there another purpose? Contrary to what Paul Burka wrote and Frank repeated, Susanne Johnson is not the author of smirkingchimp.com, or at least not much of it. Granted, her blog is hosted there, but the blog contains a grand total of three posts, the last one over a year ago, and one could hardly say that her serious messages are either continual or mocking.
Lest people dismiss him as well, note that Burka is generally conservative. I recall that he voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004.
There is some good information on the burkablog, material that clearly explains the unusual design of the proposed Bush Institute and why there is reason to be concerned about the arrangement at SMU. Read and decide for yourself.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Rove at Work
On September. 2, 2007, U.S. News and World Report wrote that Bush’s trickster, Karl Rove, “is planning to take charge…of the design, fundraising, and planning” of the Bush presidential complex at SMU. Benjamin Johnson, a history professor at SMU, attended the 2007 annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians. Several colleagues there reported that Karl Rove had been traveling around the country examining research facilities and discussing how to select Bush institute fellows (Johnson, 2007a). One prominent library director said, “Rove seems to know exactly what the square footage is of the building that will be at SMU and where it will be located on campus” (Johnson, 2007a).
Mark Langdale, president of the Bush library foundation recently confirmed that Rove is advising the organization, stating that he is “a critical resource about what happened in the administration, and he has a lot of good ideas about programming and positioning” (Meyers, 2008). This hands-on involvement by Rove demonstrates the importance of the proposed think tank at SMU to Bush insiders.
Unless the UMC takes a stand, neither SMU nor the UMC will have any say over the actions, agenda, or direction of an autonomous $500 million partisan-driven complex at one of its major universities. Karl Rove, who has a long history of hard-ball partisanship, will be in charge and he will roll out a giant Trojan horse and push it right through the front gate. The 99 year lease for a single dollar with a 249 year option (that the Bush foundation has required) means that after July, 2008 the next chance for the church to address the issue is the year 2357 (Peck, 2008).
May 28th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
How did SMU get in this situation?
To answer that question one needs to look to the SMU board of trustees, particularly Texas billionaire, Halliburton board member and Bush loyalist, Ray Hunt. A long-time trustee (continuously since 1976), Ray Hunt served as the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee for George W. Bush in 2000 (Bryce, 2005). Hunt, who has given millions to both Bush Presidents, has already donated a whopping $35 million toward the Bush complex at SMU (Weaver, 2007). According to Forbes magazine, Hunt’s personal wealth at the beginning of the Iraq war was $2.3 billion (Forbes, 2003). This year it was $4.0 billion (Forbes, 2008). Not everyone has been a loser in the “shock and awe” catastrophe in Iraq (Bryce, 2005).
According to knowledgeable UMC bishops, as well as several informed clergy and SMU faculty, Ray Hunt has been the key person in a successful effort to pack the SMU trustees with wealthy Republican allies of George W. Bush (Personal Communications, 2007; 2008). At least 26 of the 41 trustees have personal, financial, and/or political relationships with Bush, and many have been major fundraisers and contributors to his political campaigns (Weaver, 2007). Nearly all of the contributions to political candidates and campaigns by the trustees have been to Republican causes. In total, public records show that the SMU trustees have given $2,759,000 to Republican candidates and causes and $34,000 to Democratic candidates and causes in recent years (Campaign Finance in American Politics, 2007; Fundrace, 2007; NewsMeat, 2007; Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, 2004; 2007).
A balanced, responsible board of trustees would have protected the interests of the university and the church. Granting George Bush or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama permission to build an independent institute on campus to promote his or her policies is something no self-respecting university board of trustees would permit. The trustees voted for the partisan institute without one dissenting vote, even after three bishops called for many of the trustees to recuse themselves because of apparent conflicts of interests (Weaver, Sprague, Hicks and Yeakel, 2007).
May 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am
This seems to go way beyond building a library, which is what I thought was being discussed and planned for SMU. As a United Methodist, I think building a partisan politiccal think-tank at SMU is wrong, especially a Bush/Rove-driven think tank. I say this despite how many could perceive that most universities as liberal think-tanks, where conservative thought is not tolerated.